posted at 11:05 pm on November 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

MPP says that “similar proposals will be submitted in at least two other states — Vermont and Massachusetts.” A ballot iniative legalizing medical marijuana passed in Massachusetts last week with more than 60 percent of the vote. Maine voters voted to expand the state’s 1999 medical marijuana law in 2009 to include dispensaries.

***

Relaxing restrictions on marijuana met with mixed results on Election Day, approved by voters in Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts, rejected in Arkansas and Oregon.

Americans split by 48-50 percent in this survey on “legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” Nonetheless that marks a new high in support in polls back to 1985, and the first time opposition has slipped to less than a majority. Support for legalizing marijuana has grown sharply from just 22 percent in 1997.

Despite increased acceptance of the idea, intensity of sentiment is tilted against relaxing marijuana restrictions: Thirty-seven percent are strongly opposed to legalization, vs. 26 percent who strongly support it.

Mexican President Felipe Calderón says the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in two U.S. states limits that country’s ‘‘moral authority’’ to ask other nations to combat or restrict illegal drug trafficking.

Calderón says the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado represents a fundamental change that requires the rethinking of public policy in the entire Western Hemisphere…

Mexico insists the violence from cartels has increased largely because drug consumption and arms smuggled from the United States.

“Why do criminals kill so cruelly and with so much evil? Why do they take so many risks? Because they are that dumb, that violent, that savage? It’s their ambition that then causes an increase in drug prices and demand from the consumer markets,” the president said.

After Colorado and Washington state each approved recreational use of marijuana in ballot initiatives last week, Paul said it “wouldn’t hurt” for his party to take a softer stand on the issue, saying it would show that the GOP is a “little bit rational” and “reasonable” if penalties for pot possession were weakened.

“I don’t think we should put people in jail for mandatory sentences of nonviolent drug crimes, particularly 20-year sentences,” Paul said. “I’d just hate to see somebody’s kid get put in jail for 20 years for making a mistake.”

***

Young Americans are much more open to reform, about 59 percent of Americans under 34 favor legalization, as do 56 percent among those 35-44. Middle-aged Americans are evenly split, while seniors are most opposed 64 percent to 29 percent in favor. However, even a majority of seniors (58 percent) favor medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor.

Religiosity highly correlates with position on drug legalization. Sixty-seven percent of those who attend church weekly oppose legalizing recreational pot, but 58 percent support medical marijuana. In contrast 75 percent of those who never attend church favor marijuana legalization, as do 61 percent of those who only attend church a few times a year…

It would be a mistake to call these ballot initiative victories “pro-pot.” Most of those who voted in favor don’t use marijuana; indeed many don’t like it at all and have never used it. What moved them was the realization that it made more sense to regulate, tax and control marijuana than to keep wasting money and resources trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

Whether or not the two state governments move forward with regulating marijuana like alcohol will depend on two things: how the Obama administration, federal prosecutors and police agencies respond; and the extent to which the states’ senior elected officials commit to implementing the will of the people. The fact that federal laws explicitly criminalize marijuana transactions, and that the federal government can continue to enforce those laws, means that federal authorities could effectively block the initiatives from being fully implemented. But there are also good reasons why the Obama administration should, and may, allow state governments to proceed as voters have demanded…

Will federal prosecutors and police agents continue to repeat the mantra that “it’s all illegal under federal law” and that the federal Controlled Substances Act trumps all state laws? Yes, of course. But they’re up against a powerful host of arguments that also demand deference. These new laws were passed by voter initiatives, which represent the clearest expressions of the will of the people. The final tallies were consistent with public opinion polls earlier in the year, before anyone had spent a penny on political advertising. Voters clearly knew what they were voting for.

Effectively implemented, the new laws could offer fiscal benefits in terms of reducing criminal justice costs and increasing tax revenues, public safety benefits in terms of transforming a criminal, underground market into a legally regulated above-ground part of local economies, and public health benefits in terms of regulating the quality and potency of substances consumed by millions of Americans. They also, it must be said, advance the cause of freedom.

***

Both initiatives abolish penalties for adults 21 or older who possess up to an ounce of marijuana and for state-licensed growers and sellers who follow regulations that are supposed to be adopted during the next year or so. Pot prohibitionists such as Asa Hutchinson, former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), argue that allowing marijuana sales violates the Controlled Substances Act and therefore the Constitution, which makes valid acts of Congress “the supreme law of the land.”

The White House is surprisingly uncool when it comes to toking up: A Reuters piece that Charles C. W. Cooke noted on the Corner last week reports that the victories are largely symbolic. Ken Sabet, former assistant to Obama’s drug czar, said that state leaders “are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of . . . presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.” In other words, the Obama administration cares more about maintaining the concentration of federal power than preventing thousands of bored college students from getting arrested for doing exactly what the president did when he was a bored college student.

For the GOP, this is more than just an opening; it’s a magical messaging moment, which, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, conservatives shouldn’t let go to waste. “This is a classic example of where they can walk the walk,” says Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute. This isn’t really a drug-legalization issue; it’s a states’ rights issue and a limited-powers issue. All conservatives have to agree on is that the federal government might have better things to do with its freshly printed money than try to enforce a nigh-unenforceable law that local voters and leaders think was a bad idea in the first place…

If the GOP is going to be competitive in 2016, it has to communicate to young people that intrusive federal government makes their lives worse. It has to communicate that it’s the party that respects personal choice and individual responsibility. And it would probably help to communicate that when in doubt, the GOP doesn’t automatically take the side of the insanely expensive branch of the federal government that breaks into people’s homes, shoots their dogs, and imprisons them because they added a funny ingredient to their brownies.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

My problem is being forced to acknowledge that two people are married when they aren’t. A gay couple doesn’t form a marriage. If I don’t have to do that, then I don’t care what papers get passed around or who disagrees with me. If we really are free to see it as we’d like, then — thuper.

Axe on November 15, 2012 at 12:02 AM

We are forced to acknowledge so much BS these days that accepting “gay marriage” – a union of two perverts that resembles actual marriage in everything but genders and ability to conceive – is too small a thing to bother fighting over.

I don’t hate people who practice it, but I do demand that it stay behind closed doors.

I reiterate my statement:

“It is self-evident, that allowing homosexuality to be openly recognized as a legitimate state of “alternate normality” is destructive to the society that accepts it.”
Period.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM

I don’t hate black people, but i personally don’t accept them marrying a white person. “Interracial marriages send the wrong messages to kids and are destructive to our society. OPPS! I meant to say ” gay marriages”

If two people are married, then why would you choose to be irrational and say they aren’t?

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:06 AM

I believe marriage has a biological basis, not a religious or bureaucratic one. It requires a male and a female to form the couple. A marriage exists or it doesn’t (even among paired men and women) — saying someone is married doesn’t make them married anymore than saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

I don’t hate people who practice it, but I do demand that it stay behind closed doors.

I reiterate my statement:

“It is self-evident, that allowing homosexuality to be openly recognized as a legitimate state of “alternate normality” is destructive to the society that accepts it.”

Period.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM

You can reject it all you want. You can stamp your feet, and hold your breath, but the simple fact is this: homosexuality has been around since Day 1 of mankind. Society – whatever that means – hasn’t been destroyed because of it.

You can also reiterate your statement til the cows come home, but you’re claiming something to be self-evident doesn’t make it so. “Period.” I do love the, “I do demand …” There isn’t anything about you that is pro-liberty. Not a single thing. You are authoritarian through and through.

I’m fixin to take up pot seriously after chippin in another life years ago. Maybe things will make sense. Not ready for gay marriage yet, still trying to get mrs. ziffel to try more wives—to help around the ranch.

I don’t hate black people, but i personally don’t accept them marrying a white person. “Interracial marriages send the wrong messages to kids and are destructive to our society. OPPS! I meant to say ” gay marriages”

cjv209 on November 15, 2012 at 12:12 AM

I once dated a black woman. All the whites in my area were fine with us being a couple. Any blacks who saw us walking together, holding hands, slowed their cars and glared at us with hate.

Even if you don’t believe in gay marriage we cannot afford to demonize a demographic (gay people) in these troubling times. Many gay people find the message of liberty and personal freedom appealing however they are turned off by some on the right who spew bigotry at them. Now is the time to make allies not enemies.

It’s not evident, let alone self-evident. But if you’re going to make bold statements like that then go ahead and tell me what that self-evident evidence is.

alchemist19 on November 14, 2012 at 11:54 PM

I find most folks who take sides on religious issues fall into two categories:

Propitiators and Sensitives.

Propitiators see a major purpose of the law as having it be pleasing to ones deity. They see the past prosperity of America, and its current distress, in the peoples’ willingness to follow religious values. For them, codifying gay marriage is a move away from Biblical morality that their deity will punish.

Sensitives are sensitive to religious freedom issues that come up with social issues like gay marriage. They would object to gay marriage if there is not a way to separate the right of gays to marry from some court-mandated obligation to accommodate gay marriages.

Both would oppose gay marriages, but for different reasons. Listens2glenn seems to be a propitiator, and if you do not share listens2glenn’s faith, his/her reasoning will seem foreign.

I believe marriage has a biological basis, not a religious or bureaucratic one. It requires a male and a female to form the couple. A marriage exists or it doesn’t (even among paired men and women) — saying someone is married doesn’t make them married anymore than saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

Axe on November 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM

But to deny reality is to be irrational. If two people are married, then saying they aren’t is denying reality and is therefore being irrational.

I truly don’t believe a gay couple can form a married couple. I truly don’t care if my gay friend disagrees with me and enters into what they believe to be a marriage. I truly only want space to continue to draw my own conclusions without being accused of hate crime, and truly don’t want to accuse anyone else.

I truly hate this subject. :) It can’t even be broached without cracked skulls.

.
I don’t hate black people, but i personally don’t accept them marrying a white person. “Interracial marriages send the wrong messages to kids and are destructive to our society. OPPS! I meant to say ” gay marriages”
cjv209 on November 15, 2012 at 12:12 AM

.
Even people who agree with me as pertains to “political ideology” find themselves sometimes disagreeing with me, as pertains to “terminology”.

I reject the notion that humanity is made up of different “sub-races”.

Whenever I hear someone refer to an “ethnically mixed” married couple as an inter-racial marriage, I always want to ask them, “Which one is an alien from another planet? They both look human to me.”

Oh look. More issues that the republicans are relying on old people to prop up. What happens in 20 years when most who are 65 and older now are dead? Its going to happen. We can be on the wrong side of history or on the right side. Oh what am I kidding, the republicans are going to be fighting against it until the last voter abandons them.

Oh look. More issues that the republicans are relying on old people to prop up. What happens in 20 years when most who are 65 and older now are dead? Its going to happen. We can be on the wrong side of history or on the right side. Oh what am I kidding, the republicans are going to be fighting against it until the last voter abandons them.

thphilli on November 15, 2012 at 12:24 AM

It will sure be interesting, though, to see the face of society if liberals get all they clamor for.

There isn’t anything irrational about atheism. Some would argue that it’s irrational to believe a sky god exists that created everything when there is no evidence for its existence, or that a human was his son and also part of the sky god. I don’t think it’s irrational for people, especially primitive societies, to try and explain their world. Nor do I think it’s irrational to then form a cosmology of esoteric knowledge that only the initiated can fully understand, and which is used to control large groups of people.

.
I disagree, but only partly. While the idea of sticking a sausage up a fellow man’s rear is anything but normal (and kinda revolting, actually), neither sausage nor rear is mine so I couldn’t care less.

As for destructive effect on the society, I have to admit ancient Greeks and Romans did pretty well, culture-wise, despite featuring a rather intensive system of man-on-man relations.
Archivarix on November 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM

.
Is there any use in me trying to convince you that homosexuality wasn’t an “accepted norm” in those societies until the end?

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t practiced . . . . . but rather that it was kept hush-hush, behind closed doors.

Is there any use in me trying to convince you that homosexuality wasn’t an “accepted norm” in those societies until the end?

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t practiced . . . . . but rather that it was kept hush-hush, behind closed doors.

Kinda’ like this country, before the early ’70s.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 12:32 AM

There’s a great deal of use in it. I’m easily persuaded by compelling evidence so present yours that homosexuality wasn’t an accepted norm in whatever great society you care to cite, and that it was acceptance of homosexuality that caused the inflection point that lead to the society’s decline and eventual fall. Basically show me how you know it was acceptance of homosexuality that ended the Roman Empire and not the barbarian invasions, ballooning military spending (on a military that was becoming increasingly Germanic), diseases from the East or any of the other long list of reasons that get cited. I’m all ears.

You can reject it all you want. You can stamp your feet, and hold your breath, but the simple fact is this: homosexuality has been around since Day 1 of mankind. Society – whatever that means – hasn’t been destroyed because of it.

I’m fixin to take up pot seriously after chippin in another life years ago. Maybe things will make sense. Not ready for gay marriage yet, still trying to get mrs. ziffel to try more wives—to help around the ranch.

But voting, and “lobbying” does. I am engaging in that, in addition to arguing with you, and others present.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Yes, wanting to use the force of government to “bind others to your will.”

“When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.” – Robert LeFevre

canopfor on November 15, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Dire Straits on November 15, 2012 at 12:41 AM
and with that…i’ll start…
if NBC put that much effort into the truth behind
the night of 9/11 2012 in Libya we might get somewhere..
they seem to be able to hunt down facts on tickle and slap…
but four dead americans on 9/11….not so much..

When I unpoofed, they were gone. I think I saw Bmore once; he seemed to be poofing, then he was completely poofed.

I talk to Jackie a little. We were throwing memos at each other as we ran down the hall in different directions for a while. :) Then I saw myself in the mirror and scared myself — “Haggard” is the word — and tada! Vaycay. I’m off till Thanksgiving for health purposes. :) I can do that ’cause I’m so poor no one notices I’m slightly poorer.

“I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my National Security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order that I would give anytime that I see Americans are in danger, whether they’re civilian or military, because that’s our number one priority.” BHO…today
and not one MSM person bothered today to ask him….when….
when sir did you know ‘our folks were in danger’..?
i thought who what when where and how ..
were all covered in Journalism 101…
grade for todays press questions…..F..criminally liable….

If I might interject…It’s over. All that’s left is to close the casket and bury the corpse.

Liam on November 15, 2012 at 12:48 AM

We’ll survive. President’s second terms are a universal let-down for their supporters and Obama should be no exception, especially with GOP House control likely for the rest of his presidency. Not a lot good is going to happen but gridlock in Washington means they’re not likely to screw much up, and that’s a somewhat encouraging thought in these otherwise dark times.

We’ll survive. President’s second terms are a universal let-down for their supporters and Obama should be no exception, especially with GOP House control likely for the rest of his presidency. Not a lot good is going to happen but gridlock in Washington means they’re not likely to screw much up, and that’s a somewhat encouraging thought in these otherwise dark times.

alchemist19 on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 AM

The mission of the MSM is to protect Obama. His failure, no matter how big, reflects on them. So they’re not going to allow that to happen.

As for the House, the only thing separating the Pubs from the Dems is a party identity and nothing more. I wouldn’t surprised if, three years from now, they joined together to become one unit like the AFL and CIO unions joined into one entity back in the early 50s.

They (MSM) are so worried about this “sex scandal” that they will continue to try and dodge Benghazi..Our first clue was when they wanted nothing to do with the John Edwards “love child” story..:)

Dire Straits on November 15, 2012 at 1:04 AM

NO, why would the Fifth Column Treasonous Media worry about a mere sex scandal? They successfully made fast and furious disappear, Benghazi disappear, the Petraeus sex scandal will also just disappear…

To the person who said, “and a few quirks regarding adoption need to be worked out . . .” (I’ve lost my quote function for some reason) – there is no way to work out these “quirks.”

If you think you can have gay marriage and not adoption by gay couples, think again. Catholic adoption agencies have already gone out of business because of the requirement to place children with gay couples.

Perhaps you didnt mean that exactly, but in any case, that horse done left the barn.

The only thing on the issue is the timing…it stinks on ice. As for this poor bastard…it’s one thing to fall on your sword….and another being thrown.

And in the end, what exactly was his crime? Especially when you consider that another Executive Branch Office was in fact, impeached over the very same issue…

And to our friends in the MSM, unless you show proof that his actions lead to the deaths OR coverup of something worse than those deaths…shouldn’t the questions be more about WHY those men died at ALL, after 7 hours?

The mission of the MSM is to protect Obama. His failure, no matter how big, reflects on them. So they’re not going to allow that to happen.

As for the House, the only thing separating the Pubs from the Dems is a party identity and nothing more. I wouldn’t surprised if, three years from now, they joined together to become one unit like the AFL and CIO unions joined into one entity back in the early 50s.

Liam on November 15, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Clinton had the media and the only thing of note he did in his second term was not get removed from office and be too busy doing that to mess up the internet boom. The second term of LBJ/JFK was so bad that Johnson ran back to Texas rather than face the people and that was while they still had their media monopoly.

“It is self-evident, that allowing homosexuality to be openly recognized as a legitimate state of “alternate normality” is destructive to the society that accepts it.”

holds no relevance with me, or my continued arguments (and votes cast) against it.

It is “self-evident” whether you agree to it, or not.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 1:13 AM

It’s not that you haven’t proven it to my satisfaction, it’s that you haven’t even attempted to prove it at all. That leads me to the conclusion you probably can’t because there is no logical, rational, factual basis for what you believe. Which is fine, you’re still entitled to have an opinion on things, even if it’s an ill-informed and illogical one.

And to our friends in the MSM, unless you show proof that his actions lead to the deaths OR coverup of something worse than those deaths…shouldn’t the questions be more about WHY those men died at ALL, after 7 hours?

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 1:20 AM

You can back a truck up to the Mexican border, hand crates of rifles to drug lords, and start reenacting scenes from Predator — if you are the right sort of people. The question is: who did it? And according to the answer, LSM decides whether it was right or wrong. :(

Not likely, mostly because it’s still an enforceable and guaranteed revenue stream(Fines & Vehicle Seizure & sales) for state governments.

I’m okay with Legalizing it, within reason…I expect that like most things when the Fed & State government see sure money rolling in, they’ll get into enough that cost will eventually be 75% about what it costs illegally now….LOL

I’m fixin to take up pot seriously after chippin in another life years ago. Maybe things will make sense. Not ready for gay marriage yet, still trying to get mrs. ziffel to try more wives—to help around the ranch.

arnold ziffel on November 15, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Just got off the phone with yer missus. I told her about a couple of really hot farm hands I know. You are right. Help is hard to get. She seemed quite interested.
Gotta go. Have some pix to e-mail.
Toodles!

I seen it once on the tailgate o me truck. :) It went three days without eating. Scary. Still, I was pretty paranoid when I was stoned on le plant de doritos, before the rocky relationship ended. Badly. :) If I remember correctly. And I almost certainly don’t.

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 1:20 AM
i say we offer the Tart in question Immunity,,and gently
remind her lying .. is 5-10…
question one…..you spoke in Denver about benghazi
being a CIA black op site…who or where did you learn
of this…..
if that fact is true….and there is proof….
THAT is what BHO is covering up for…however clumsy…
it is also why the orders were given to ‘stand down’
a incident and a live ambassador would be PROBLEMATIC..

I live in Washington State and if the fed jackboots try to stop us from legalizing MJ then I’m signing the seccession petition and encouraging everybody else in my state to do likewise. I think you can add at least 10% or 20% over the passage of the MJ bill and my state would be much better off without the elite crooks in DC, NY and Chicago. I’d rather preserve the union but I don’t want to live in the fascist states of America.

You can back a truck up to the Mexican border, hand crates of rifles to drug lords, and start reenacting scenes from Predator

LMAO…nice reference…but sadly, it’s almost like that now. How some of the crime stats for Chicago, IL alone? Won’t even mention places like Oakland, CA? Washington, DC has areas that look like Belfast or Algeria in the 1970
with the amount of violence.

— if you are the right sort of people. The question is: who did it? And according to the answer, LSM decides whether it was right or wrong. :(

Axe on November 15, 2012 at 1:25 AM

And the day Conservatives lost that message and that ability, we ceded a lot of ground.

Losing Education along with Hollywood has cost us plenty: we’re losing our American Common Sense, and that’s going to take decades to fix.

DC/NY/Chicago can keep their debt, inflation and jackboots to themselves, my sense is that the people of Washington state don’t want it. During the prohibition of alcohol my state had an independent spirit and that remains so to this day. If King Obama is going to squash our democratic rights up here in my state then I think the the general public’s opinion of government is going to change abruptly.

In a sense Obama will be taking the first step toward self destruction of his own wonderful welfare state by showing everybody that the federal government is not for the good, but for the bad.

If there was a detention center there, either he knew (signed EO) and it’s LEGAL, or he didn’t know (Covert Op) then still “Legal” depending on what went on: But still he wouldn’t get grilled THAT hard by the pets in the press.

Now, OTOH if he pressed personally for this base to be set up OR, believe it or not, there is a documented paper trail and certain people were told to evade questions…?

But he’s got alot more die hard believers that would forgive him for the first 2 above…and MAYBE enough of a minority that would support him still if he was Watergated over this.

.
It’s not that you haven’t proven it to my satisfaction, it’s that you haven’t even attempted to prove it at all. That leads me to the conclusion you probably can’t because there is no logical, rational, factual basis for what you believe. Which is fine, you’re still entitled to have an opinion on things, even if it’s an ill-informed and illogical one.

alchemist19 on November 15, 2012 at 1:24 AM

.
All logic is based on what is known.

You and I disagree on “what is known”.

Each one of us will continue saying that “my knowledge is more accurate, therefore my logic {conclusion(s) arrived at} is/are more sound.”

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM
i believe after outlawing such black sites in 2009
you would have to have BHOs Signature on each case..
which means…he knew…day one…moment one…
he had to cover this mess up….fast